have been compelled to it by the threat of an Armada or the menace of
a Napoleon. But we have not cultivated war, at least since our wode
days, as a pastime and a profession. Nor is French that abnormal
being, an Englishman governed by the blood lust. Mrs. Despard has said
that in reality he regards war as a hideous outrage. He has no
delusions as to the glory of war. By no chance could he be ranked
among the romanticist of the battlefield. That, perhaps, is why he
never is, never has been, ruthless or remorseless with the men whom he
commands.

[Page Heading: FRENCH AND THE SUFFOLKS]

If ever French had cause for anger, it was over the unlucky incident
of the Suffolks, the one failure unwarrantably attributed to his ever
victorious arms. Yet he was the one officer who softened the
bitterness of that reverse to the men. He met the regiment in the
Transvaal just eight months after the disaster. His speech to the
troops, as reported in at least one paper, is well worthy of
preservation. After referring to his pleasure in meeting them all
again, he said: "What you did at Colesberg is still fresh in my
recollection ... but what I wish especially to recall is the sad event
of the night of January 5th and 6th, and to express my sympathy with
you on the loss of your gallant leader, Colonel Watson, who on that
night showed splendid qualities as a noble and able officer. Now, it
has come to my knowledge that there has been spread about an idea that
that event cast discredit of some sort upon this gallant regiment. I
want you all to banish any such thought from your minds as utterly
untrue. You took part ... in a night operation of extreme difficulty
on a pitch dark night, and did all in your power to make it a success.
So do not let any false idea get into your minds. Think rather that